Tweet
CALIFORNIA ARMENIAN GENOCIDE LAW OVERTURNED
by Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/23/BAC31NBJGJ.DTL&tsp=1
Feb 24 2012
CA
A California law allowing heirs of victims of the Armenian genocide to
sue in state courts for unpaid insurance benefits is invalid because
it intrudes into sensitive foreign policy questions that are the
exclusive domain of the federal government, a federal appeals court
ruled Thursday.
In an 11-0 decision that tiptoed around the use of the word "genocide,"
the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the
law, passed in 2000, "establishes a particular foreign policy for
California" that exceeds any state's authority.
The court ordered dismissal of a class-action suit filed in 2003 by
several hundred Armenian Americans against a German insurance group
and two subsidiaries. The ruling effectively kills all suits filed
under the law, since a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Lee Crawford Boyd,
said there's little chance that the Supreme Court would agree to
review an appeal.
It was the latest in a series of federal rulings that have barred
California and other states from allowing victims of decades-old
foreign atrocities, like the Nazi Holocaust and the alleged use of
slave labor by the Japanese military, to seek redress in their courts.
As many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the Ottoman Empire
between 1915 and 1923. Most historians consider it a genocide, but
the Turkish government protests use of the term and has urged U.S.
administrations to prevent any endorsement by Congress.
President Obama, in annual speeches condemning the killings, has
refrained from describing them as a genocide. The Obama administration
took no position in the case.
The California law allows descendants of Armenians killed or deported
during that period, or of anyone who escaped to avoid persecution,
to sue insurers until 2016, long after the normal legal deadlines
would have expired.
A three-judge appeals court panel upheld the law in 2010, saying
it did not conflict with any explicit federal policy. But after the
full appeals court granted a rehearing, the 11-judge panel Thursday
said foreign affairs are an exclusive federal preserve, even if the
government has no defined policy on the subject.
California's law was "intended to send a political message on an issue
of foreign affairs by providing (monetary) relief and a friendly
forum to a perceived class of foreign victims," Judge Susan Graber
said in the ruling. She said the law "imposes the politically charged
label of 'genocide' " - a term about which, she said in a footnote,
the court expresses no opinion.
Boyd, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the ruling was disappointing but
sent a strong message, along with other cases, that U.S. courts will
not permit such laws. In a dispute between private parties, with the
Obama administration voicing no objection, she said, "I think the fears
(of interfering with foreign policy) are overblown."
Neil Postman, lawyer for German insurance company Munich Re, said the
court properly recognized that "the interests of the United States
as a whole are more important than the particular interests of any
small group."
The ruling can be viewed at
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/23/07-56722.pdf.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff
writer. [email protected]
by Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/23/BAC31NBJGJ.DTL&tsp=1
Feb 24 2012
CA
A California law allowing heirs of victims of the Armenian genocide to
sue in state courts for unpaid insurance benefits is invalid because
it intrudes into sensitive foreign policy questions that are the
exclusive domain of the federal government, a federal appeals court
ruled Thursday.
In an 11-0 decision that tiptoed around the use of the word "genocide,"
the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the
law, passed in 2000, "establishes a particular foreign policy for
California" that exceeds any state's authority.
The court ordered dismissal of a class-action suit filed in 2003 by
several hundred Armenian Americans against a German insurance group
and two subsidiaries. The ruling effectively kills all suits filed
under the law, since a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Lee Crawford Boyd,
said there's little chance that the Supreme Court would agree to
review an appeal.
It was the latest in a series of federal rulings that have barred
California and other states from allowing victims of decades-old
foreign atrocities, like the Nazi Holocaust and the alleged use of
slave labor by the Japanese military, to seek redress in their courts.
As many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the Ottoman Empire
between 1915 and 1923. Most historians consider it a genocide, but
the Turkish government protests use of the term and has urged U.S.
administrations to prevent any endorsement by Congress.
President Obama, in annual speeches condemning the killings, has
refrained from describing them as a genocide. The Obama administration
took no position in the case.
The California law allows descendants of Armenians killed or deported
during that period, or of anyone who escaped to avoid persecution,
to sue insurers until 2016, long after the normal legal deadlines
would have expired.
A three-judge appeals court panel upheld the law in 2010, saying
it did not conflict with any explicit federal policy. But after the
full appeals court granted a rehearing, the 11-judge panel Thursday
said foreign affairs are an exclusive federal preserve, even if the
government has no defined policy on the subject.
California's law was "intended to send a political message on an issue
of foreign affairs by providing (monetary) relief and a friendly
forum to a perceived class of foreign victims," Judge Susan Graber
said in the ruling. She said the law "imposes the politically charged
label of 'genocide' " - a term about which, she said in a footnote,
the court expresses no opinion.
Boyd, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the ruling was disappointing but
sent a strong message, along with other cases, that U.S. courts will
not permit such laws. In a dispute between private parties, with the
Obama administration voicing no objection, she said, "I think the fears
(of interfering with foreign policy) are overblown."
Neil Postman, lawyer for German insurance company Munich Re, said the
court properly recognized that "the interests of the United States
as a whole are more important than the particular interests of any
small group."
The ruling can be viewed at
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/23/07-56722.pdf.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff
writer. [email protected]